07-25-2016, 09:08 AM
Thanks Boris! Another happy MFT customer. I know this might be the wrong forum to discus them, but the question of why hasn't Canon or Nikon jumped into the mirrorless fray, and I wonder if it is because I'm not sure how much sense larger format mirrorless camera make. Why simply complicate a system that works, and make it three times as expensive in the process? MFT on the other hand does what I would have expected. They have made a smaller, less expensive, portable system with very good IQ.
I believe the E-M10 is the camera that my friend working for the state parks has. He really loves it...and then some! I think the camera I was thinking of was the E-M10 II. But it's hard for me to keep non-Canon camera models straight! The three people I know who have MFT have one thing in common. Enthusiasm! Two are very experienced photographers. And one is new to photography but is loving his Panasonic Lumix MFT.
I do get the Camera models confused. I have to look them up to see what features they each have. I find if I stray far from Canon, following the features of different camera models in a companies line up becomes complicated. For example reading the following:
<p class="">
<p class="">"The OM-D E-M10 II is the follow-up to the E-M10, which was introduced in January 2014. To keep the E-M10's price down, Olympus had to cut out several of the most notable OM-D features, including 5-axis image stabilization and weather-sealing. That said, it also had some features not yet found on the more expensive OM-Ds, like a new image processor, higher resolution LCD, and Wi-Fi."
I have noticed Pentax has done the same in the past. Introduced a cheaper economy version DSLR that actually has a more advanced image processor, and so on, but lacked the weather sealing and the high quality pentaprism viewer.
<p class="">
<p class="">Gah! This is barbaric! You don't put better features in economy models than your flagship has!
<p class="">
<p class="">But alas! Canon has gone the route too! It used to be you just looked at the ###D to save some dollars, the ##D if you wanted a few more features, and #D if you wanted the best.
But again, it is the photos and size that make MFT important. A neighbor recently to a 3 month safari starting in South Africa and moving northward for 3 months. He has a Lumix variant of the MFT theme. I would have wanted the very best camera money could buy, but he bought a Lumix kit with two lenses, and bought a third long telephoto to round it out. He brought back 8,000 beautiful shots! Doesn't sound like a lot for three months, but all the photos are good, so I guess he tossed the bad ones. I can emphasize enough that this is a totally beginner to photography. When he showed me the camera he didn't even know it was Micro Four Thirds! I pointed out the
<p class="">I I I I
<p class=""> I I I emblem to him.
<p class="">
<p class="">He said he began his search with certain requirements. Small size, few lenses, good telephoto, and good image quality. All I can say is I can argue with the results. "Hi spec nerds" can talk about their superior cameras, but the proof in in the photos.
<p class="">
<p class="">I only wish I could go to Africa for a mere moth! But I have to give him credit. He put together a good, small, inexpensive kit and worked it like a pro! (Like I would have, he never let his camera out of his sight).
I believe the E-M10 is the camera that my friend working for the state parks has. He really loves it...and then some! I think the camera I was thinking of was the E-M10 II. But it's hard for me to keep non-Canon camera models straight! The three people I know who have MFT have one thing in common. Enthusiasm! Two are very experienced photographers. And one is new to photography but is loving his Panasonic Lumix MFT.
I do get the Camera models confused. I have to look them up to see what features they each have. I find if I stray far from Canon, following the features of different camera models in a companies line up becomes complicated. For example reading the following:
<p class="">
<p class="">"The OM-D E-M10 II is the follow-up to the E-M10, which was introduced in January 2014. To keep the E-M10's price down, Olympus had to cut out several of the most notable OM-D features, including 5-axis image stabilization and weather-sealing. That said, it also had some features not yet found on the more expensive OM-Ds, like a new image processor, higher resolution LCD, and Wi-Fi."
I have noticed Pentax has done the same in the past. Introduced a cheaper economy version DSLR that actually has a more advanced image processor, and so on, but lacked the weather sealing and the high quality pentaprism viewer.
<p class="">
<p class="">Gah! This is barbaric! You don't put better features in economy models than your flagship has!
<p class="">
<p class="">But alas! Canon has gone the route too! It used to be you just looked at the ###D to save some dollars, the ##D if you wanted a few more features, and #D if you wanted the best.
But again, it is the photos and size that make MFT important. A neighbor recently to a 3 month safari starting in South Africa and moving northward for 3 months. He has a Lumix variant of the MFT theme. I would have wanted the very best camera money could buy, but he bought a Lumix kit with two lenses, and bought a third long telephoto to round it out. He brought back 8,000 beautiful shots! Doesn't sound like a lot for three months, but all the photos are good, so I guess he tossed the bad ones. I can emphasize enough that this is a totally beginner to photography. When he showed me the camera he didn't even know it was Micro Four Thirds! I pointed out the
<p class="">I I I I
<p class=""> I I I emblem to him.
<p class="">
<p class="">He said he began his search with certain requirements. Small size, few lenses, good telephoto, and good image quality. All I can say is I can argue with the results. "Hi spec nerds" can talk about their superior cameras, but the proof in in the photos.
<p class="">
<p class="">I only wish I could go to Africa for a mere moth! But I have to give him credit. He put together a good, small, inexpensive kit and worked it like a pro! (Like I would have, he never let his camera out of his sight).